DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS

Transcription

1 Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Volume IV No. 8. January 28, nd Sessil:>n, 26th. Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans. Queen s Printer for tbe Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

2 DAILY INDEX Thursday, January 28, 1960, 2:30 p.m. Introduction of Bill, No Motion to Discuss Urgent Matter: Mr. Molgat, Mr. Speaker Mr. Molgat, Mr. Lyon. ; Mr. Camp bell Mr. Roblin Mr. Paulley Mr. Desjardins, Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Schreyer Mr. Camp bell, Mr. Corbett, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Molgat Mr. Roblin, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Guttormson Mr. Speaker, Mr. Molgat Questions , Throne Speech Debate: Mr. Martin Mr. Hryhorczuk Mr. Christianson Mr. Dow Mr. Desjardiils INDEX TO VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS, 1960 Introduction of New Members Speech from The Throne Debate: Mr. Groves, Mr. Jeannotte, Mr. Camp bell Resolution: Rules (Mr. Lyon), Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Paulley Motion: Election Act (Mr. Lyon), Mr. Paulley, Mr. Campbell Introduction ofbills: Nos. 43, 27, 14, 18, 45...' Orders for Returns: Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Dow Speech from The Throne Debate: Introduction of Bills: Mr. Paulley Nos. 20, 3, 19, 49, Speech from The Throne Debate: Mr. Froese, Mr. Orlikow Bill No. 2 (Mr. Hutton) 2nd Reading: Mr. Campbell, Mr. Roberts Bill No. 4 (Mr. Johnson, Gimli) 2nd Reading: Mr. Campbell Bill No. 5 (Mr. Roblin) 2nd Reading: Mr. Campbell, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Gray Bill No. 6 (Mr. Roblin) 2nd Reading: Mr. Campbell Bill No. 8 (Mr. Johnson, Gimli) 2nd Reading Introduction of Bills: Nos. 52, 54, 15, 16, 50, 52, :.. 67 statement, re Television, Mr. Carroll _ 69 Motion, re Agricultural Credit Corporation, Mr. Shoemaker Resolution, re School Construction Grants, Mr. Dow, Mr. Schreyer... Spee_ch from The Throne Debate: Mr. Peters, Mr. stanes Introduction of Bills: Nos. 55, ;... ;. ; '- 81 Bill No. 3 (Mr. Lyon) 2nd Reading Throne Speech Debate: Mr. Schreyer, Mr. Seaborn, Division on Amendment to the Amendment

3 THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Thursday, January 28th, 1960 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees Notice of Motion Introduction of Bills HON. GEORGE HUTTON (Minister of Agriculture)(Rockwood-Iberville) introduced Bill No. 57, an Act to amend the Watershed Conservation Districts Act. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would like to table a return to the Order of the House for the ormation requested by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. li!ir. GILDAS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called I would like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a definite matte!' of urgent public importance, namely, the gross breach of parliamentary practices and procedures and the co ntempt of the Legislature of Manitoba as evidenced by the actions of a Minister of the Crown in revealing details of the estimates of expenditure of this Government for the fiscal year starting 1st of April, 1960 to persons outside of this House before such estimates have been presented to this House. MR. SPEAKER: I am not just sure if this is a proper motion or not. It certainly makes certain charges against a Minister of the Crown and we do not know just what those charges are by the wording of the motion. It seems to me that it may not be, the way it is worded, a proper motion to come before the House. It's certainly not of urgent public importance and we have agreed, I believe, that that is not to be taken into consideration until the co=ittee on rules meet and they will make a decision in that respect. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order if I may, I believe that we are still operating under the rules that we operated under last year. There has been no change made in the rules as yet, and that was not the policy that was followed in the past in this House. I see no reason why, until the rules co=ittee meets, that there should be a change in the rules because we have not agreed to such a change. And insofar as the reasons for this, I believe that the motion states quite clearly the actions to which we are referring, and that is the giving out outside of this House of information which this House has not yet been advised of. MR. SPEAKER: I have no objection to it coming before the House but I still am not convinced it's an exactly proper motion. Mr. Speaker read the motion. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, the matters to which I refer in this adjournment are the statements that were made by the Honourable the Attorney-General to the meeting of the Council of the Municipalit-y of Fort Garry on Tuesday last. My understanding is that at that time the Municipality of Fort Garry and the Council were advised of certain expenditures that this government is proposing to do in that area in The report is that there were a number of specific programs that were stated there with specific amounts of money that were to be spent on them. Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a most serious matter and also a most urgent one, because it strikes at the very root of our reason fo!' being here as members. And if that is the policy that is to ba followed, that I asked, there is an immediate question confronting all members of this House: V.lhat are we here for if this is the policy that the government is going to continue? This to me,.mr. Speaker, is the crowning action of a government who is more interested in political expediency than in good administration. It seems that there is one rule that they follow consistently and that is propaganda first, all the time, in every occasion, and unless this process is stopped, I say that this Legislature may as well be suspended and the members go back home and let the government proceed and make its announcements all over the place as it sees fit. I do not propose at this time to go.into the actions of tbis government outside of this House, although there is certainly a great deal that ctfuid be covered there. I want to stay strictly to what is going on here in the House and to the procedures here in the Assembly. January 28th, Page 95.

4 (Mr. Molgat, cont'd.) While a private member and while the Leader of the Opposition, my honourable friend the First Minist3r was one of the champions of the rights of this Legislature. He spoke on many occasions on this matter and he stood up at all times for the rights of the opposition and of the House. his attitude. Since becoming First Minister, however, I find a marked c:!j.ange in It seems to me that there is a complete reversal and that he is working steadily at the erosion of our rights here in the Legislature, and he is thereby lesse;ning the importance of this House. We find, for example, in the Throne Speech last week that many things were omitted in the Throne Speech, but they are told to us a short time after by one of the private members. I suppose we can expect that there will be further announcements made a little bit all over the place by various Ministers and private members, and that way they will develop the pl ogram of the government rather than presenting it to this House as it should be done in the first place. We find that when the House meets the First Minister proposes that there should be a rules committee set up to go over the rules of the House and some suggestions made at that time that this particular rule that I am now speaking under should be changed. Also, the length of time of debate on the Throne Speech should be less. In other words, a different attitude than that my honourable friend had previously. We find as well that last year, for example, on the Throne Speech, the Ministers of the Crown at that time made departmental estimates, reviews and statements. That was quite all right. They were quite free to make all the statements that they wanted to discuss -- every single item of roadwork in the province under the Throne Speech, but this year when the same matter comes up again, oh, things have changed. Now we should stick to the motion under consideration. Mr. Speaker, we have reached with this last action, however, the most serious point in this deterioration, the point where a Minister of the Crown uses his special position for his propaganda purposes of his own in his own constituency; where a Minister of the Crown takes advantage of the advance information that he has, as a member of the cabinet, to further his own 1aims in his constitu.ency. And who of all people is doing this, Mr. Speaker? the Attorney-General himself. None other than The man who is there to look after the legal aspects in particular in provincial affairs. The man who should be best advised as to what the rules of this House are. I ask, M:i:. Speaker, is this advance information given to other members of this House? it certainly isn't given to any members on this side. Well, This constant politicking, Mr. Speaker, 'by my honourable friends across us, this prostitution of the provincial interest for pure propaganda purposes and their own political aims, are extremely bad. It is not however, in my opinion, the worst aspect of this particular development which I have been referring to, It is the shocking contempt of this House which is the serious aspect, and I think it is the most serious affair that has happened since my honourable friends have taken power. When His Honour calls us here to assemble, to discuss the matters important to this province, there are two main historical reasons for our being here. One of them is to discuss the proposed expenditures of His Honour's Government and the other the ways and means of raising the revenue to cover that expenditure. should be.advised of these proposals. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we are the only people who We should be the first people to be told about it. They should not be bandied across the province to others until the House, whose duty it is to consider it, has been fully made aware of it. I ask then, what is the responsibility of this House? If Cabinet Ministers could go about and state to other people this is what the government is going to do; we are going to spend so much and so much money here and there; it is a firm decision; what are we here for? What is the point? I would like to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that we very frequently refer here to the Mother of Parliaments. We refer to the rules and the traditions that we have inherited from that source. I recall that not too many years ago a chancellor of the exchequer inadvertently let slip some information on his budget proposals prior to presenting his budget in the House- and this I say inadvertently, and it was admitted to be such, I believe, by all parties in that House. And what did that gentleman do, Mr. Speaker? He resigned. this time. A MEMBER: Quite proper! MR. MOLGAT: I suggest that the House might give this matter serious consideration at MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I think it is Page 96. January 28th, 1960.

5 I (Mr. Lyon, cont'd. ) only appropriate that I should make some response to the remarks which have just betr.l made by the Honourable Member from Ste. Rose. May I at the outset, Mr. Speaker, say that generally speaking I concur, in not everything, but practically everything be has said with respect to the rules of this House, observing the proper decorum with respect to this House, and making sure that each individual member of this House should do nothing which would hold this House in contempt. I think that the theme upon which he argues is a good theme. I think perhaps the instance at which he directs his vituperation is perhaps not a good example of infringement of the theme. May I say first of all, Sir, in reply to the remarks that have been made, that I am not going to claim this quotation in the newspaper where this story was carried and where obviously the honourable member obtained most of his information. The explanation I give, I hope will be suitable and will certainly be understood and appreciated by the House, and it is a sincere explanation which I am giving and one in which I am trying to recall and record the facts as cer tainly they come to my memory. My remarks that I made, the remarks that I made the other evening concerning proposed- proposed public works were all made, and I stress this point, they were all made subject to confirmation -- as I said at the outset-- subject to confirmation by the estimates of the Department of Public Works. done in my particular area in 1960, I said this was what, speaking as an MLA. this was what I hoped we might see The matters that I dealt with with the council were not secret in any way at all because on most of them, if not all of them, there had been prior negotiations goili.g on with the Department of Public Works at the sub-ministerial level and with the staff of the Municipality of Fort Garry. We had had considerable discussions, I may say, with respect to a road going into the university- meetings between myself and. the then mayor of Fort Garry, the former Minister of Public Works, and so on, at which time certain decisions were arrived at, always subject to what the estimates of the Department cif Public Works would reve al when they were disclosed to this House. And so I do want to make that point clear, that what I said on that occasion was made subject to these being approved and being in --and being in the estimates of the Department of Public Works. The main point of my attending the meeting, and this was clearly stated or at least it was in the news report to which I am sure my honourable friend refers, my main point was to be there, as the MLA, to greet the council officiaj).j at one of its early meetings in the year and to invite the council to come in to meet with the Minister of Public Works pursuant to a letter which they had already received from the Deputy Minister of Public Works inviting them to come in to discuss certain matters which were under consideration between that municipality and the government, and these were public works matte:. s. As I say, the information that I conveyed without particularizing was not information which was secret as between the councillors and the government, It was information upon which discussion had been going on for some time. Now having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, having said all of that and pointing out what I consider to be proper extenuating circumstances, I still admit that the inference could be drawn, especially by a news media who don't take down every word that is spoken, the inference could be drawn that this was a preview of information which, as the honourable member mentions, should properly be given first to this House. I regret this interpretation was drawn and I regret even more that the words that I used at that time were capable of that misinterpretation. It was not my intention nor indeed my desire to usurp the function of this House, nor would it ever be. Holding the position that I do in this House, as the honourable member has pointed out, not only should I be conscious of tne rights of this House --may I say, Sir, in all humility, that I attempt at all times to be conscious of the prerogative rights of this House and of the prerogative right of information being given only in this House. I would say this further, Sir, that if it is felt that through perhaps an improper choice of words, through lack of stressing of the point that I have made today, if it is felt that my inadvertence could be so construed, I must apologize most sincerely to the House for not wording my remarks more carefully because certainly that was my intention. And I certainly should apologize to the House if this, what I said, was capable of being misinterpreted in the way that obviously the Honourable Member from Ste. Rose does interpret it. Perhaps I did.not use or was not as careful in my language outside of the House as certainly one must be inside this Chamber. I can say as a member, and as an individual, that certainly no offence was intended. January 28thm Page 97.

6 (Mr. Lyon, cont'd.) No offence was intended against you, Sir, or against this House, and I can give only my,.personal assurance to the honourable member that that is the case. Now having, as I say, having said all of these things, I do wish to point out that my remarks were prefaced by the statement that "subject to these matters being confirmed and in the Dept. of Public Works estimates, this was what we hoped would be done." I still hope that these things will be done, Mr. Speaker, but I do admit that there may have been inadvertence in the wordinginadvertence in the way this was worded so that the proper emphasis was not picked up by those listening to my remarks. HON. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition)(Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Minister who has spoken on this subject has given his explanation with regard to it. I am sure he must feel very embarrassed by the fact that he must be, holding the position that. he does, the subject of such a motion in this House, and I can't see for my point how anyone, a member of this House or the public, could take any other interpretation from not only the press report, which by and front the Honourable the Attorney-General admits is quite accurate, but from the action that he toqk. He tells us that he made it plain to the. council of the Municipality of Fort Garry that the projects that he was mentioning and what he had to say with regard to them were stlbject to confirmation by the House. But the same press report quite definitely mentions that it was communicated to the council that these items are in the estimates. Yes it is. We will go through this report a little bit, Mr. Speaker, because I share with the Honourable the :Member for ste. Rose; who brought this motion to the floor of the House, that this is one of the most serious things that this House has ever had to deal with in all the years that I have been here. It is not inconsistent with the case that my honourable friend mentioned of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the United kingdom who resigned -- who resigned his post because of a similar breach of etiquette; of a similar breaking of the rules of Parliament; of a similar contempt of the House that he sat in; and that's what this amounts to --nothing less -- and no explanation such as the one we've heard from the Honourable the Attorney-General this afternoon will change that position, Mr. Speaker. The press report begins - "The law -- the law paid a surprise visit to the Fort Garry Council meeting Tuesday night in the person of Attorney-General Honourable sterling Lyon who is a member for Fort Garry in the provincial legislature. He was there to report on public works to be carried out in the municipality in 1960." No wonder that the council of Fort Garry was surprised. No wonder that they were surprised to see a member of this House coming to tell them of the works that were going to be carried out in 1960 before this legislature had received the estimates. No wonder they were surprised, and they'd be doubly surprised if they were aware of the constitutional positions as they are, they would be doubly surprised at the fact that the man who perpetrates this breach of parliamentary tradition is none other than the Attorney-General of the province. An amazing situation! No wonder they were surprised. Mr. Lyon said -- and this of course is from the Free Press of yesterday -- Mr. Lyon said "the perimeter highway that lies within Fort Garry will be completed in 1960." But here is another amazing statement -- "and will cost $588, 000." Mr. Speaker, I pause to ask the question, has this contract already been let? I ask the government, has it already been let? Could we have a reply to that question? Has this contract already been let? Because if it hasn't been let -- if it hasn't been let, then there's a double error here, because what my honourable friend is doing is giving advanced information to the people who may be tendering on that project. And if it has been let without the money being voted by this parliament, then that government is in greater contempt even than we find them in at the moment. Quoting the actual figures, Mr. Speaker, of what these various projects will amount to. Another $174,000. will be spent paving a 24-foot wide strip from the old main gate at the University of Manitoba on Pembina Highway to the University Administration Building. Has that one been let? The honourable gentleman should tell us one thing or the other. Either these contracts have been let or they haven't been let. If they've been let -- it isn't likely that they'd be let unless there was some money left over because I don't think even this government would go so far astray that it would let the contract in advance of the estimates being provided here, but the honourable gentleman who attended there as member for Fort Garry tells the people the amount that they're expecting this to cost, and that's a fine way to handle the business of this province. And after another item or two, the report goes on to say he told 9ouncil th t enou h mqney ad been set asid!3 in. the government estimates to repave the busmes3 portion of.l:'embma Highway -- set aside m the government Page 98, January 28th, 1960.

7 (Mr. Campbell, cont'd. ) estimates. The honourable gentleman may have made the qualifications that he mentioned here and I certainly agree with him that if he did he did not choose his words very carefully, and so, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with this position that, long before the estimates come down in this House; before even the debate on the Speech from the Throne has been more than half through, I presume, or less than half through; before the government has had confidence voted in it; a member not only of the House, a member not only of the Cabinet side--of the government side, a member not only of the Cabinet, but the member of the Cabinet who holds the position of Attorney-General, the chief law officer of this province goes out and tells his constituency advance information that is not yet in the possession of the legislature. Mr. Speaker, I thin. that the words that the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose used are temperate indeed in describing a situation of this kind. I have certainly never seen its equal in tb.e years that I have been here. I trust that we will never see it happen again. I commend the Honourable the Attorney-General for an attempt to explain the situation and for the apology that he has tendered to the House, but I say that for such a serious, such a flagrant breach of the position that he holds as a member of the government, that an apology to this House is not enough. The First Minister should consider the matter from the point of asking for the resignation oi the Honourable the Attorney-General. This is a serious matter, Mr, Speaker, No one- absolutely no ol!.e, I'm sure, could question the urgency of tbis matter coming before the House at this time, This is one of the things, as the Honourable Member for Ste, Rose has mentioned, that strikes at the very root of the parliamentary traditions and it's broken by the Honourable the Attorney-General. Mr. Speaker, there's no need to belabour the point. Certainly no words of mine are strong enough to express my dis2pproval of tbis action, my criticism of the honourable member himself, and the government of which he is a member for allowing it to happen, and I recommend to the First Minister that he seriously consider the only possible action that he can take under these circumstances. HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I'm always glad to listen to any advice that may be tendered to the gov<:jrnment from members that sit opposite, but their counsel carries more weight if it fits the proportion of the circumstance. I think that the Attorney-General has made a candid and honourable statement to the House this afternoon, has expressed his regrets for the situation that has arisen and I for one think that that is ample expiation, if expiation is required, for the circumstance in which he has fotmd himself. And my view of the matter is that after the honourable gentlemen opposite have amused themselves this afternoon at his expense, in dealing with this matter, that that should be sufficient investigation of the circumstances which are described here. The plain fact is that people make mistakes. He I confess that I'm among those wb.o make mistakes but I am also certain that they should be considered in the context of the s.ituatlon, and when we have received an explanation such as the one that we have received this afternoon, I think we should consider that to be an acceptable explanation of the matter. I want to say just another word though, because when my honourable friend the Member for st. Rose was speaking he went a little farther afield than the particular matter under consideration, to castigate the government generally and myself in particular for similar errors or similar shortcomings in respect of our attitude toward the legislature. them wholeheartedly, And, Sir, I repudiate My honourable friend appeared to believe that we of the government, for example, authorized private members to make statements of policy that are not in the Throne Speech. Well, Sir, if you believe that you believe anything. It simply is not couect. We do not in this Part-g have the habit of :J.betting the speeches of our members and the honourable member was spealdng, as I am sure he intended to speak, for himself, as a private member has the right to do and not for the administration. I am reproached as well for wishing to abridge the rights of parliament because we have convened a committee to consider the rules. Well, Sir, I would like to say that before that step was taken I thought it right that!. should consult with the leaders of the other parties. It is not right that I should disclose here what was said to me on that occasion, nor will I do it, but I hope I may be allowed to say that the proposal that the Rules Committee should meet was one which appeared acceptable to those honourable gentlemen, though I say that that in no way commits them nor do I seek to commit them now in advance with respect to the matters, although there were some discussions on it, but it is not proper for me to intimate in any way that they January 28th, Page 99.

8 (Mr. Roblin, cont'd.),,agreed with what might be proposed for that committee to consider. I merely record the fact that I took what I thought was the proper courtesy of consulting them on the formation of that committee, And I would also say, Sir, that in respect of the rights of parliament, we are taking in this session of the legislature an important step, a step that becomes more important as each year goes by, which my honourable friends had the opportunity to take in their day but which they neglected to do, namely, we ara going to propose to this House that the Throne Speech set forth the fact that there will be a proposal made to have a committee on regulations, so that regulations that are made under the statl!w of Heaven. knows how many, and how varied they are today, and how important they are, and I regret how essenti9j to the conduct of modern government, so that those regulations can be reviewed by this legislature to provide an opportunity for any member of this House, on either side, to state his v-:iews and that the matter may receive thorough public consideration, a..'l.d if ill the field of regulations which is so much a part and so major a part of the duties of government.today when powers are delegated to us, there should be an accounting to this legislature of that very important function of the administration. So I say to you, Sb:, that when hor>.ourabie members opposite loosely ma. e the charge that we are contemptuous of parliament, I don't think, Sir, that that is justified by the facts, and I say that in my humble opini.on the fact that we.in this legislature, to the best of my knowledge the only legislature in Canada, although I would like to check that before I make it as a categorical statement, but to the best of my knowledge the only legislature in the country that is considering this kind of regulation, this kind of arrangement to permit regulations to receive the thorough scrutiny of the House, is something which can hardly be described as the action qf a government which is in contempt to parliament. Adverting again to the charge of my honourable friend, which they have attempted to magnify in a way which I do not think the situation justifies, let me remind them that the mcident to which they refer, although we may not regard it as one which we would like to have re-occur, the incident to which they refer is one which they themselves have in times gone by been I think guilty of, although they had the good sense apparently to do it where there w re no newspaper reporters around, because I challenge members on the opposite side who had cabinet e:;,.-perience to answer whether or no discussions have not taken place :with municipal officials before monies were voted by the legislature about roads or other public works in their constitu- encies. My honourable friend speaking oppobite promised the City of Winnipeg $1 million on the Disraeli bridge that he had to come to parlirunent afterwards and get it approved on, and he says that is an entirely different thing. I wonder about it. The former Minister of Health and Public Welfare, who is no longer in this House, announced increased provincial grants to the City of Winnipeg before it was reported here in this House. The former Minister of Education, no longer in this House, announced government debenture buying programs for school districts before it wa.s announced in this House; and my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition gave away a million dollars worth of real estate just across the street here to the City of Winnipeg before it was ever announced in this House or the financial approval of this legislature. So I want to wind up by this, I thin.l<. my honourable friend the Attorney-General has made a proper statement. I approve of it and I think that it is a statement which is :fitting under the circumstances, but I also say, Sir, that we should not allow ourselves to be carried away by thinking that this particular offence is of such a nature that it calls for the remedy that my honourable friends opposite advise. Physician heal thyself. HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the CCF) (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a word or two in connection with this and I think the members of the legislature will be all the better informed of the procedure of parliamentar.r government because tills matter has been raised in the House. As a matter of fact, I did have the newspaper clipping on my binder to raise the question at some other time but now that the matter has been drawn to the attention of the House as a matter of urgent importance, I think that it is well that the error has been clarified. I think, Sir, that it would only be fair of me, as leader of this party in the House and as a member of this legislature, were I to say firstly that there was on behalf of the Attorney-General some indiscretion in his appearing before the Council of Fort Garry and revealing in detail certain financial aspects of the government before it was tabled in the House, and having said that, Sir, I, as a member of this House, am prepared to accept the. statement of the Honourable the Attorney-General as to what he actually said and may not be contained in the Page 100. January 28th, 1960.

9 (Mr. Paulley, cont'd.) newspaper report. But even more important than that, I think for the Government of Manitoba - in the use of the word"goyernmeni!'i mean all-embracing and not ju.st the government itself -- that it is well that be b.as and we have all learned a lesson from this. I do not agree with the contention of the official opposition that this is a matter which should callfor the resignation of the Iviinister. I think the parallel, or the point that the Liberal opposition is attempting to raise in respect of the resignation of the Minister in the old land, is not a parallel at all because id. that particular instance it was a revealing of the budget itself on a matter of taxation and what was contained therein in respect of that. I want to say this to the government and to the Attorney-General, that had he revealed details of the budget itself of ways and means, then I most assuredly would have taken an entire- ly different attitude than: I am taking now. further. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I need not say anythi.'lg The First Minister has given us illustrations of incidents, while maybe not as vivid as this, of incidents which were occasioned during the administration of the Liberal government here in Manitoba and I agree -(Interjection)- maybe in your opinion but in mine there is --.I agree with the. First l'iiinister on some of the illustrations that he b3.s given but more importantmore important than all of that,_ Mr. Speaker, I think that after tbis indiscretion.has beeln made, after the individual concerned has admitted to tbis House that he was not very careful in his choice of presentlj.tion to the Council of Fort Garry, tb3.t we in this House should accept that explanation and that both the government and the members on this side should gain from tb3.t unfortunate experienc that we have here this afternoon. MR. LAURENT DESJARDINS (St. Boniface):.would like to make. Mr. Speaker, there is only one point) In bis usual capable way the honourable the First Minister followed tbis old trick -- the old system of when found guilty accuse somebody else, and them you will get the eyes away from your own guilt. Now he mentioned certaili things which were ail policies of a government. He mentioned members of Cabinet that spoke as Cabinet Ministers. Now if this policy \vasn 't a good one, it's a dif:ferent thing that the Attorney-General today told us himself that he was not there as the At'"..orney-General of the Prov',nce of Manitoba, but as the member ' for Fort Garry in bis o 'll constituency. MR. EDMOND PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise to bring to the attention of this Hc.use another indiscretion that has been made by a member of the Cab.inet along the same lines. MR. SPEAKER: I don't believe you can raise that question on this motion. lvir. CAMPBE LL: 1-.!J:r. Speaker, this motion refers to a Minister of the Crown. MR. SPEAKER: May I have the motion? I believe it. deals with one specific question. MR. C.A.JviPBELL: Any Ministel'. at all.. A l\'iinister. MR. SPEAKER: Well I'm sorry, I misunderstood the wording...;... MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Speaker, I would bring to the attention of this House an incident that happened at the end of December when a delegation from Carillon constituency came to see the Minister of Public Works at that time. It is reported in the Carillon News The The headline is this: " St. Pierre road for sure 1960." This is an announcement of a road for which the money would be voted at this coming session, and it was done at the end pf December arid aimounced as such. I would like to read the story. Definite promise was made to build a road loo% government.... MR. SPEAKER: I might enquire if that statement was made by the present Minister of Public Works. MR. PREFONTAINE: By the ex-minister of Public Works. MR. SPEAKER: Well I'm afraid tha:t the ex-micister of Public Works is now Lieutenant Governor and MR. PREFONTAINE: I understand it was made on behalf of the government of Manitoba by the Minister in office MR. SPEAKER: He is not subject to political controversy MR. PREFONTAINE: I accede to your ruling, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr. Speaker, as a back-bencher, I would like the indulgence of the House to enter into this debate. Reverting back to the matter which YTas under discussion for the last half hour or so, I would like to say that I agree completely with the words January 28th, Page 101.

10 (Mr. Schreyer, cont'd.) voiced by my leader; but it occurred to me that there is a very important matter which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition and which my leader did not mention, and that has to do with the matter of tendering. Now I would agree with my leader full well that although there is an indiscretion here it has perhaps been magnified out of all proportion by the official opposition, but the question of the tendering of the contract for the construction of roads in that municipality is a very important one, and certainly I have not heard any response to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I don't know whether I am letting my imagination run away with myself but it seems to me that this is a very gross violation and gross carelessness on behalf of a Minister of the Crown to give a very close approximation of the value of a contract, value of work needed in this construction, and I think that the government should clarify this. Perhaps if they do it will be all to their benefit, but certainly clarify it. Have the tenders been let, or not? MR. STAN ROBERTS (LaVerendrye): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the words of the Honourable Member from Brokenhead. On the same line the First Minister actually has by reference or inference admitted that one of his Ministers of the Crown has released information and proposed figures concerning a Public Works program for a municipality. I think we are all aware of how highly confidential this information must be of necessity, and I think we are all now aware that the information was released in this manner. This has not been denied in any way and I would only like to pass reference to the remarks of the Honourable the First Minister when he said that we are amusing ourselves this afternoon discussing this matter. MR. A. E. CORBETT (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, as an engineer I think I could settle some of these questions about amounts. On all road work or any other contracts with the government, as a rule, there is an estimate made for the completed job. Sometimes that job may extend over two or three years and be let in person, and I am quite sure that the figures mentioned in this matter were no contract figures but probably the remains of estimates that were made one or two or three years ago and I don't think there is anything been given away or anything terribly bad about mentioning these exact figures. They were estimates that could have been made a year ago or it might have been a total amount of $1 million of which $600 thousand was done and there is $400 or $588 thousand left for the perimeter road. I'm quite sure that is just a residue of the former estimates and I don't think there is anything radically wrong in those figures at all. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Hunourable Member a question? If that were the fact, would it not be the case though that when that particular remaining portion of the road is coming up for tender, that by giving that information in advance it would help the tenderera in their estimating? MR. CORBETT: I don't think it has the slightest thing to do with it in the world because there's estimates made years in advance and the prices -- merely-- do the work for-- unit prices and such as that are have nothing to do with the money voted. They tender on what they consider they can it it's a hundred thousand dollars above a hundred thousand dollar job why they can take it or leave it, but it don't influence any contractor that has got any common sense at all. MR. CAMPBELL: In other words the engineer's estimates aren't very reliable. MR. MOLGAT: In closing this debate---- MR. SPEAKER: I would like to inform the member that there's no closure in this debate. MR. MOLGAT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to Hansard March 19th, 1959, Volume II, No. 6, when the same matter came up and the usual authority that we consult here in the House, listed here as Mr. Roblin, said "Mr. Speaker, let him speak on the same issue." MR. SPEAKER: I might quote the Ontario rules and it's very clear in there. "A member desiring to move the adjournment for such a purpose must submit to the Speaker in advance"- well, that doesn't cover here because we don't do this, but at the end of the rule, "there is no right of reply by the member who introduces the motion. 11 MR. MOLGAT: It's quite clear. Mr. Speaker, that rule is an Ontario rule and as such does not apply to our House. I submit that the rule that applies to our House is the rule that precedent has established. A precedent has established in this Hansard that I quoted that there was a right to reply. Now if there was a right to rep l.y then, if none other than the First Minister said at that time, "Mr. Speaker, let him speak" why should I not be allowed the same right at this time? Page 102. January 28th, 1960.

11 MR. ROBLIN: Getting to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I always take a great interest in, the se debates on matters of urgent public opinion because as members who have been here for any number of years will know that I've been the mover of such motions from time to time, and I can recall distinctly many occasions on which I was in a similar position to the Honourable :rvrember for Ste. Rose, and which the right to close the debate was not given as it -- whatever he may be quoting from I haven't in front of me so I can't see the details of the matter -- I talm his word for it in that respect -- but I have been sat down. I can recall an interesting resolution on freight rates on one occasion about 1952 when my honourable friend who sits opposite me now suggested to the then Speaker that there was no closure of debate and I was not allowed to speak ag ln and I think that, generally speaking, in Parliaments of the Commonwealth that is the rule and I would commend that to the House at the present time. The quotation here is correct, I said, "Mr. Speake r, let him speak" and the member then spoke. Fortunately he didn't say too mu oh, it was of no account anyway being the Honourable Member for St. George s resolution, I think on floods or somethlng of the sort but, nevertheless, he did say words so it's in Hansard, and I freely admit that, but I submit to you, Sir, that you are right in saying that it's not in order and that the honourable member should merely ask that permission be given to withdraw the motion. IviR, CAM:PB ELL : JI!Ir. Speaker, on the point of order. The honourable gentleman who has just ta_ll:en his seat says that such and such was done L71 times past, but this is the new order we have now. This is the new order and it was my honourable friend himself who encouraged the establishment of this new custom that we do have the right to spe ak, and if my honourable friend at this stage having said, "Let the Honourable Member for SL George speak", when he had moved a similar motion, now says, "Don't let the Honourable J',;fember for Ste. Rose speak", we have rank discrimination. The Honourable the First Minister should not be allowed to display his evident prejudice in favour of the Honourable Member for St. Geo rge to the detriment of the Honourable Member for ste. Rose. Now in fairness, and we demand fairness in this House, the only 'Nay for the honourable member to rectify this situation is to say "Let him speak. " MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, being one of the committee that is soon going to review the Rules of the House I've been looking into Beauchesne recently, and only this morning I saw the rule pertaining to this motion of debate on an urgent matter and you are perfectly c,orrect in your ruling which says that there is no reply to a mover of this resolution. Now that is Beauchesne's third edition I believe. Now then, Sir, having said that, that you are perfectly within your rights insofar as Beauchesne and rules of order are concerned, I respectfully suggest that the point raised, by the Leader of the Opposition is a valid one, because recently the practice has been to allow 2i. reply to the honourable member who has raised this issue and I respectfully suggest to you, Sir, that again on a question of order, that past precedent take place 01 be allowed to continue until we've really revised the rules for our province. MR. SPEAKER : The rules is in my opinion quite clear and it's true as a matter of courtesy, the First Minister did allow closure of the debate but this time he seems as though he is not willing to extend that courtesy again. It wasn't a ruling by the Speaker, it was a matter of courtesy of the House and I must take the stand of course that there is no closure of the debate. MR. PAULLEY: Sir, on a point of order I would sugge st that it is not up to the First Minister to decide on the courtesies in this House. I realize he frequently does, but surely that decision is up to you, Sir, not up to him.(interjection). Yes, but he S!fYS that the last time was on the basis of courtesy by you which I definitely do not accept. The last time the decision was by acceptance of the House and the rule has been established. lvir. SPEAKER: That's what the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose said. He quoted the Hansard that the Speaker is always the servant of the House and if the House is agreeable to hear the debate, as they did on that occasion, well, it's true it takes place but that doesn't make it a rule of the House IviR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, you just said the First Minister isn't prepared to extend the same courtesy this time. MR. SPEAKER: Yes. He ex".ended the courtesy on the other debate but---- MR. GUTTORMSON: It isn't up to him to extend the courtesy. You are the Speake r January 28th, Page 103.

12 (Mr. Guttormson, cont'd.), of this House, not Mr. Roblin. MR. SPEAKER: Well that's certainly true and that's why I'm not allowing the debate to continue to be closed on this motion because it's my right to say whether it is not. ready for the question? MR. MOLGAT : Are you Mr. Speaker, I believe the usual custom here is for the mover of this motion to ask that it be withdrawn, and while I would very much like to have closed the debate, I regret that the ruling does not permit me that which has been permitted in the past. I would ask at this time that the motion be deleted, provided the First Minister is willing to extend me that cotu tesy. MR. SPEAKER: In asking the House for another courtesy, is it the wish of the House that the motion be withdrawn? Agreed. Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for St. John. MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's) : Before the Orders of the Day, yesterday I sent along- yesterday, lvir. Speaker, not today, I sent along a question to the Honourable the Attorney General. My que stion is as follows : The Winnipeg Free Press January 25th reports that John Paul Croteau was held in jail for five months without trial. He was held because he was unable to raise bail and while the Crown hunted two witnesses." I would like to ask the Attorney General how was this possible? How often do similar cases occur? What steps can be taken in the future to protect the rights of citizens? MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Honourable Member for St. John's for giving me notice of this question. May I say that a question in similar terms was also directed to me this morning by the Honourable Member from Inkster and I've taken note of it and will attempt to answer his question at the same time. The first question posed to me was:"how was this possible?" Referring to the news report which appeared concerning the confinement or the detention of a man for five months before his charge was dismissed for want of prosecution by a county court judge. I think for the benefit of the House, Mr. Spe aker, I should give a very brief outline of the facts in connection with the case. John Paul Croteau alias Charles Paul Sherwin, was arrested by the police on the 27th of August, 1959 on two charges; one of possession of an explosive substance, to wit, dynamite caps; and secondly, the possession of a firearm, namely a revolver, without a permit. On the 28th of August, the day following, he appeared in the City Magistrate 's Court, represented by counsel as he was at all stages during the se proceedings, and asked for a remand without plea. That remand was granted by the sitting Magistrate and on that date bail was set at two sureties of $5, each by the Magistrate, and at this point I should I think inte rject, Mr. Speaker, that bail of course is solely within the discretion of the presiding justice. I should also mention that the accused was represented -- at the time that bail was set that the accused was a transient having no fixed place of abode in the City of Winnipeg and that the re was a previous criminal record to be considered, all of which are factors which are taken into account by a court when arriving at bail. On September the 4th, following the one week remand requested by the accused, he elected to be tried by judge and without a jury and the preliminary inquiry into his charges was set to go on September 22nd, eighteen days later. On September 22nd the preliminary inquiry was held and the accused was committed for trial His case was then set down for trial on the 21st of December, 1959 before His Honour Judge A. R. MacDonnell in the County Court Judges Criminal Court. I may say that the date of this trial was advanced well ahead of several other matters in view of the fact that the accused was still in custody. I should also inte rject this fact, that the Assize regularly sit -- the Queen's Bench Assize regularly sits sometime from the middle of October until the middle of November, at which time the County Court Judges Criminal Court does not sit to hear criminal matters. On December 21st the accused, again still represented by counsel, appeared before Judge MacDonnell and at that time the Crown advised the court that they were unable to serve three material witnesses in this case. I won't go into the details of why these witnesses were missing or anything of that nature because I don't think it is pertinent to the case. In any case his counsel, the accused's counsel on that occasion made a motion for the release of the accused on his own recognizance, but this was not granted by the court. The case was then adjourned by the court for one month, approximately to January 25th, when the Crown again appeared and advised the court that they had been unable to Page 104. January 28th, 1960.